1) NY-Sea + Den-Pitt vs Hel-LA + Chi-Sfe 123 - 109 Despite only 3 locos and no start my colours were quite good. I was able to abandon longest and just get there by points on the board and the heavy ticket points.

2) Den-Pitt + SSM-Nash vs Winn-Lr + SSM-Okl 117 - 110 My first 2 moves were - I think - 6 orange and 4 green and besides helping me that seriously slowed him down. He found a way around but I got longest with the loop Mon-SSM-Tor-Mon

3) Mon-NO + Winn-LR vs Port-Pho + SSM-Okl 100 - 117 Halfway he was complaining but I had my problems too In the end he managed a nice route and I couldn't get longest anymore.

4) Dul-Hou + Winn-Hou vs Winn-LR + Sea-LA 119 - 112 Not one of my favourite combo's but when you get 8 greens it's not too bad! He had to go all around the west to connect and in the end I could even overdraw once to ensure longest.

5) Van-Mon + Chi-Sfe vs Chi-NO + Tor-Mia 93 - 106 Obviously a much better combo for me, but I got loco'd away (2 vs 7) right from the start. He took up 6 orange, 6 pink, 6 white, 5 black and I had to scramble like mad to even make Van-Mon. Chi-Sfe was never going to happen and Chris managed after obstructing me to still make both his tix and longest for a very good win.

6) Sea-NY + Den-Pitt vs Cal-SLC + Chi-Sfe 120 - 96 Happy to see the same combo as in game 1. This time I also had the start and 6 loco's, but still he got in my way and made it very difficult. Once I got through though I was always going to win this one.

It was not halfway but right at the beginning and actually I didn't complain but just wanted to let you know in between that I didnt fall asleep.
I really had absolutely no idea what to with the game in the beginning.

Quote:

5) Van-Mon + Chi-Sfe vs Chi-NO + Tor-Mia 93 - 106 [...] make both his tix and longest for a very good win.

It was not halfway but right at the beginning and actually I didn't complain but just wanted to let you know in between that I didnt fall asleep.
I really had absolutely no idea what to with the game in the beginning.

Quote:

5) Van-Mon + Chi-Sfe vs Chi-NO + Tor-Mia 93 - 106 [...] make both his tix and longest for a very good win.

Longest for you

I totally believe you Completing Mon-Van AND getting longest is usually enough to win, so therefore I figured you must have had longest Maybe even better if you still managed to win without it!

Unfortunately, no screnshots this time, but still report in the Red Gazette / french forum... if you can read a little of my lovely language

Various games and battle though...
I think we can't complain about the combos we had both, the "42" in bonus for my opponent in the 4th.
Probably, a "lucky" win for me by 1 in the 3rd, where onyx could get the tie by choosing differently at the end.
And a "nicely" block from me in the 5th, to avoid him to reach Dallas (this town is truly cursed ).
[NB: among the spectators, if there are some that think this block is only luck, they can continue to think it, I don't care... I even prefer ]
Overall, not so many locos for me... but I won more easily when I had few than more !

*** mean ones (but unfortunately I couldn't be mean enough when you had 16+17 whereas you managed to block my 11 in last game) ,

*** a surprising one (you had just 2 little tix, while your route let me think you have at least one biggie and I felt quite hopelessly until you started to draw in the end)
*** and a clear one (Sea-NY and NY-Dallas against your 3 East tix: Bo and Tor-Miami and Dul-Hou).

Grats TUS ! It was an amazing and thrilling clash to watch ! NC rocks !

Any comment about the tie-breaker ? Please feel free to post in the forum !

What a terrible way to be knocked out of the playoffs. You have a clash that is completely tied, yet it is a draw that decides the winner? I think that needs to be fixed for the future. When a clash is tied 12-12, having 2 matches end 3-3 and the other two 4-2, 2-4 respectively. It is a disgrace to a tournament and to a team to be knocked out by an order of play. There needs to be a new rule for this circumstance.

I understand the difficulty with scheduling if we have a tiebreaker match. However, it seems to me that there has to be a way that someone plays to be eliminated when there is a tie, not by a choice. In all honesty, it is not much better than flipping a coin or pulling a name out of a hat. The team that is on the losing end feels cheated.

We need to look into alternatives...Even if that means in this circumstance, the final pairing plays a best of 3 immediately following their match, or of any of those present that are watching, it is decided by the opponent captain who plays a best of 3 or something similar. Even a sudden death game would be more satisfying than losing by an order of a draw. Please let me know your suggestions and comments...I am eager to know what your feelings would be and are. (Keep in mind it would be best if you consider yourself in the shoes of the team that just lost based upon the current tiebreaker format).

Thanks for a great tournament!! I still think we can do better than this type of an elimination. No tournament is ever done this way. You can't be eliminated if there is a tie. Let's figure something out...Thanks!!

it is not much better than flipping a coin or pulling a name out of a hat. The team that is on the losing end feels cheated.

First of all I would like to congrat TUS for being in the semi-final and ATN for the great clash and being that close to eliminate that superteam.
That said, I quite disagree with the flipping a coin argument: My point is that the one that pulls the names out of the hat is your captain, when decides the line-up, so not random at all, but the stronger players deciding a match (only when it is tied after 24 games).
Just to remember the pros of the current system, it maximize changes of having four balanced matches, as the stronger players play among themselves (which is nice to see) and the not that strong players also play among themselves.
I'm not saying that this system is perfect, and of course everything has pros and cons but I don't see any alternative which is clearly better.

Quote:

Keep in mind it would be best if you consider yourself in the shoes of the team that just lost based upon the current tiebreaker format

Please believe me I'm doing. If Jordi wons against Wolfgang and I lost against dea, with the same result, we will be in the same position, and will be much worse for me, being the one that lost. If that happens, my feelings, rather tan feeling cheated, will be that after 24 games we didn't demonstrate to be stronger than AAA, so I will just congratulate them and wish good luck for the next round.

Maybe an explanation is needed, in case not all readers of this thread have studied the rules.

It is not a draw that decides on the winner in the case of match 2:2, games 12:12.
Decider is then the "ranking" of the slots, that was known in advance, and has to be handled by the captains in whatever they consider a "clever" way.
If slot 1 was not 3:3, the winner of slot 1 advances.
If slot 1 was 3:3, the winner of slot 2 advances.
...
If all 4 slots were 3:3, slot 1 has to play a 7th games to decide the winner.

I know that some captains do their lineup randomly in RR (by shuffling cards or whatever). You can, but you need not.
If you do that in the knockout, the tiebreaker rule may feel like "let luck decide" - so in KO you definitely should not ...

I like this rule, because it introduces a new tactical element.
You can line up your players in order of their strength, or at least put your best player on slot 1- That's what eg CAT did in R12.
Or you can put your tops on the lower slots, hoping they maybe crush the opp's weaker players there - example SOS in R12.
Or you can think "the opp will probably line up in order of strength, I put my players against the assumed opponents they like most" - I think that's what CAT did this round
Or you can think "the opp will probably assume that we line up in order of strength, so I assume he will put his players against our assumed players they like to have, so I adapt my lineup accordingly" - that's what we did this round - in case my theory is correct, we were right in assuming that Suburu wanted to play against me (and therefore put Pammes on #2, who wanted Suburu) but wrong in assuming that CAT would want Daedin to play against Angel on #1.
Summary: In case Lucullupus wins 4:2 against Daedin tonight and I lose 2:4 against Pegaso tomorrow, I've lost the QF twice - 1: as player by losing my match, 2: as captain by using wrong tactics in the lineup.

I think this is really interesting, and the best tiebreaker rule we ever had.

It isn't like flipping a coin, because we know in advance in wich order matches will count in case of 2-2 and 12-12.

I would have been really happy to see you go to semi (because you eliminated us, so you are a great team ), but as dea said, ATN and Tus didn't have the same tactical. Your tactical was good in RR12 (or mine wasn't good, or my team wasn't strong enough to beat your team) , and wasn't in RR8. That's the game !

The rules for this new tiebreaker were set, explained several times before KO, so there is nothing to complain now.
For sure it is tough to be knocked out with a perfect tie.

Like dea, I personnally (and I think all the captains) like the strategy / bluff behind the line-up.

To avoid frustration, other tie breakers could be:
- the most football like: if at the end of the last game of the last match there is a perfect tie between the 2 teams, the 2 players play another deciding game, random start (until there is a winner, with alternate start on even games in case of tie again). Pro: clear difference and fun/exciting game for lobby. Direct decision, no new scheduling.
Cons: this could bring strategy, struggle for match scheduling (the "best" opposition to be played last.
- sum the points of each 24 games: Pro: I think the most solid team will be higher than the "Lucky" team. Cons: still not a final tiebreaker! And possible changes in the playing behaviour = play with less risk.

I realize it comes across more as a complaining sore loser than constructive debate when ATN raises questions about tiebreak immediately following our elimination. And I know this was the result of the rule as it was established prior to this year's NC. Of course we are most sensitive to it right now, but even 10 days ago during R12 I was suggesting to sysy it be reviewed AFTER we complete NC so that if a better solution exists, and I believe one has to, it might be implemented for next year.

I respectfully disagree with the idea the order of the pairings is significant of a strategy and tactical role in the tourney to determine final outcome of a clash. Not to say that the order is not important, because I believe in KO it is very much so, but the winner should ultimately be determined by what happens during the course of actual gameplay. Whether that is a 7th game or some 5th match, or whatever else, when a clash ends 12-12/2-2 I feel advancing to the next round should be done within the context of the game and not left up to a list of 4 names.

My only other point is to suggest that if rule were to be kept as it exists, then maybe matches should be played in reverse order of pairs, so more is known when the deciding matches are played. If lineup is to have that much importance then probably the top pair should play last to know exactly where the clash stands. But I know this would create more scheduling problems, and honestly if I had gone first this clash maybe I do not play as well as I had to knowing it was a 5-1 requirement to advance.

I think my statements may be taken the wrong way. I am not mad at TuS, and I wish them congrats and the best for the rest of NC. Those of you that really know me, know that I am far from a sore loser and I am a good sport, no matter what the competition may be.

However, I still think that there needs to be a better way to decide an advancement in a tournament. I understand that the rule was already in place, and it is probably better than we had last year. With the element of a 6 game clash, which is more equal as well, I understand the change.

With that said, I still believe that had TuS lost, they would say congrats as well, but would be looking to see if there is a better way to solve the issue of a tie. I think that having a 5th match is still the best way to decide it, and in honesty, that match could still be listed and played during the week or 10 days that are given to complete a round. However, it would only matter in the circumstance of a equal tie.

The alternative would be to give an extra 3 days only for a 5th match to be played, and the person that would be placed in this slot, would have to have good availability those 3 days. So, it would be listed by the captains, and would have to be played by a player who did not already play during the initial clash, unless the team did not have another player. You could play a 3, 4, 5, 6 game clash. If you elect to play an even number of games clash, a possible tie breaker would still have to be listed. But, if you chose to do a match that stated, the first person to have 3 wins will win the clash, then it could be 3 games, 4 or 5. or technically 6, if there is a tie in 1 game.

I am open to other suggestions, but I don't believe there is much strategy involved by choosing a line up. That just means if 1 player at the top has a bad day or someone has a lot of extra luck, there is more riding on a single match, but hopefully it would be the person who plays better. Ultimately I would prefer to at least see the 1st pairing play a final game than to decide a tie based upon a line up. Your captain is only making an educated guess who is going to play the best right at this moment. I still think it should be decided by game play and not a decision made by a captain.

Game 4: I have the wrong colors and get blocked out of la. I faked sea ny port nash + longest, but wasn't near enough - even if he were to draw

Game 5: I get 6 orange, 6 pink, 4 green and 6 black. He has 6 grey and 6 white. I decide to get in his way with 5 red. At the end I figure I'm losing without longest - not knowing I could lay 2 to tie it (thinking he had more colors to get it). So i draw and find dul paso

Game 6: I start a nice route with 6 grey, 6 white, 6 yellow, 4 green. He connects van with 6 orange, 6 pink, 5 black, 4 to cal and 3 to van. I have to take an extra turn to get a loco as my finishing colors were horrible (lots of singles). I lay 3 pho sfe since he's already played blue. He uses 2 locos and a blue to kill my longest - and it plays into his longest with 3 white from nash. So i draw and find dul paso (if i would've had 1 more color, i would've had chi fe as well). Calculating the end...I'm assuming he has mon atl, so I'm losing by 2. I draw...and see mon atl! Super argggggggg! But, if i don't draw, maybe he draws and finds mon atl - so i'd lose that game anyway. Snifffffff ...

AMP had several miracles happen to get us this far in the tourney - one more was just too much to ask! Thx for the interesting games David and grats to those crazy RED frenchies!

1.) my start, Port-Phoe + Den-ElP vs. Sea-NY + Chi-Fé
Better tickets for me and start should be enough to win, but Jordi had more locos and started early with 6 orange, got 6 yellow and white before I could do anything. Jordi abstained from making his second ticket, but Sea-Ny and longest route was enough to win easily: 106-121 and 0:1
2.) Jordis start, Tor-Mia + Bos-Mia vs. LA-Chi + NY-Atl
Again more locos for Jordi, again he made just his big ticket. I could manage to get longest, but Jordi was too fast for me - one move more (5 white) and I would have won this: 098-105 and 0:2
3.) my start, Dul-ElP + SSM-Okla vs. SF-Atl + Dal-NY
Clear better tickets for me, equal locos (I think), but Jordi tried his best with an early draw (finding Bos-Mia). I got longest, but Jordi could draw a second time - this time without success (he could have found LA-Mia or LA-NY, NY-Atl was also on his route, but would have been not enough): 118-100 and 1:2
4.) Jordis start, Van-Fe + Hel-La vs. Van-Mon + SSM-Okla
Start and better tickets for Jordi, but the first time I had locos and started early with 6 yellow, 6 orange and 6 blue. Jordi got 6 grey (with pink) and I played 6 white (3 locos). When Jordi played Cal-Hel I could (and probably I should) anticipate the danger of Van-Mon and block this ticket with Van-Cal. But I did not realize my chance and Jordi edged me: 110-116 and 1:3
5.) my start, Van-Mon + SSM-Nash vs. Sea-La + Kan-Hou
Easy win for me - I got all long tracks in the north (more locos and good colours), could abstain making SSM-Nash and finished in 9, so no chance for Jordi: 118-085 and 2:3
6.) Jordis start, Port-Phoe + Dul-Elp vs. LA-Mia + Chi-NO
The most interesting game (imho). I started with 6 yellow and orange, Jordi got 6 black and 6 red. When Jordi played Houston-No I had to play 6 green (I had few locos, but good colours). Jordi had to go to Dallas. I did not try to block him (senseless, I am sure that he had enough locos to play another 4 red), so I played Phoe-Paso and Jordi 5 white (Pho-Den). That made me slow, I had to play Fe-Den, Salt-Den and Sea-Port. Jordi could not block with 6 blue, because it would cost him his second ticket and I had pink (never played). In the end I won the battle of longest route, so Jordi connected Dul and drew tickets. There were enough tickets on his route: LA-Chi, Chi-Fe, Dul-ElP, Dul-Hou and Den-ElP, but he needed at least two good tickets (18 points) to win. In reality he found nothing: 123-100 and 3:3

As expected a close and interesting match against a nice guy (the whole Catalunya team is very likeable) and the third tie in this clash - so the fight of the number one seeded players Dea and Pegaso will decide about win or loss, very exciting. So spectators, have a look at DEA - PEGASO, today evening, 8 p.m.

I think my statements may be taken the wrong way. I am not mad at TuS, and I wish them congrats and the best for the rest of NC. Those of you that really know me, know that I am far from a sore loser and I am a good sport, no matter what the competition may be.

I can confirm that, we lost TAG together in Fusion-Cup. But the moment to discuss that a few hours after been eliminated, before the tournament isn't finished, isn't the right one.

ATN Vballman20 schrieb am Sat, 23 November 2013 23:54

With that said, I still believe that had TuS lost, they would say congrats as well, but would be looking to see if there is a better way to solve the issue of a tie.

I can't confirm. If Thomas had lost 2:4 against Menno, I would have known, Spock has to win, although a 3:3 would have been a perfect tie, and I'm sure, I wouldn't have started a discussion now. How could I? I accepted the rule by not making better proposals, when dea, Sysy, Truck and some more had an open dicussion about it, and by register a team. The rule was known and it's not that unusual. It is similar to the rules in sports like football or handball. 2:2 at home and 1:1 away means, u are eliminated in football Champions-League (ask Ibrahimovic), although u were not beaten and it's a perfect tie. And that is the big business.

At the beginning I wasn't happy with that rule but I didn't take part on the discussion. And I'm not sure, if there are better tiebreakers. The sum of the points is no good tiebreaker in my eyes. A win with 42 is normally a high win, but does not say anything about the quality, the wins with just 1 or 2 points are the wins, that u get with great play. And I think, also 1 game between 2 players with 1 player with start, perhaps better tix and more lokos isn't more satisfying.

But please let us finish this tournament at first. As Sysy said, we do not need more (and I can't stand more) thrill than in the last game between gnirlum and spock, by the way one of the most worth seeing games I ever saw. Thx for that Spock and gnirlum.

But the moment to discuss that a few hours after been eliminated, before the tournament isn't finished, isn't the right one.

I disagree with this 100%. This is the exact time to discuss it. This is the only time most people will make comments/suggestions. Every time we "wait", nothing ever changes, nothing ever gets done, no one ever makes suggestions other then a few core people.

I am not saying there needs to be a change, but if there is an idea out there, this is the time it should be brought up, while the incident is fresh in people's mind.

TuS won by the rules for this NC, and they deserve to move on. If ATN was better, we would have won 1 more game, but we didn't. If I would have thought gnirlum was going to play as amazing as he did, I would have put him in slot #2 and me in slot #3, and we would have won.

I do see the point of my teammates, that the match should be won in game, not because of something out of the game. But we did that last year with the extra match and I thought it was unfair that one star player could push a team through the KO rounds - it should have been a "team" thing in my opinion (i.e. each team member plays an extra game or something, but that would take too long to schedule).

The problem is there is no other easy to identify in game stats to use as a tie breaker. Least number of starts would be a good one, but we evened that out when we went to 6 game matches. Sum of points of games, just doesn't make sense. The best next tie breaker in my opinion, assuming no extra games/matches are played, would be Locos. The team that got the least number of locos should move on. Obviously we aren't going to use this because it would be a huge hassle keeping track of locos. The next would be tickets players got. We would have to rank how good each ticket is and keep track of what each player had. Again a bit much.

So we are left with what we have. I preferred my method I suggested last year, which is just a slight modification of the current rule, but it doesn't require putting your best player in slot #1.

If we had more time, we could just replay the match! Each team sends in new line up...